The sexual double standard (SDS) is a belief that access to sexuality varies by gender. According to SDS, women are expected to be passive “gatekeepers” of sexual activity; men the “initiators.” Women are socially punished for having sex; men are rewarded. In a set of two experiments, Dr. Yuliana Zaikman examined how these gendered stereotypes might influence the way people think about sexual consent.

The 2016 US presidential election brought polarized reactions, both joy and despair, to the forefront. During “Emotions & Politics: The Inextricable Link,” Allison Troy of Franklin and Marshall College and Brett Ford of the University of Toronto discussed people’s predictions about, and reactions to, the strong emotions that resulted from the election of Donald Trump.

No relationship is perfect. Conflict is bound to arise. We know there will be points in our marriages where our partners let us down, and vice versa. Fortunately, having conflict may not necessarily be detrimental to our relationships. What does matter however, is how we respond in the face of that conflict.

In the present climate of divisiveness and inter-group hostility, few attitude objects are as topical as other people. How we evaluate others, especially those from different groups (racial, political, class, etc.), can be consequential for a whole host of outcomes. At this year’s attitudes pre-conference, held a day before the official start of The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) annual convention, attitudes toward other people was center stage.

The purpose of diversity can seem different for different people. At the SPSP 2018 Annual Convention Justice and Morality Pre-conference, Dr. Stacey Sinclair from Princeton explored the motives underlying diversity in “Why Diversify: Framing Diversity as a Moral Versus Instrumental Good.”

How people frame the benefits of diversity, according to Dr. Sinclair, can be more moral–motivated by fairness and justice–or more instrumental—motivated by usefulness, like broadening horizons.

In the aftermath of intergroup injustice, apologies from the perpetrator groups are commonplace, but taking the next step, and ensuring that the victims are empowered, can be overlooked. How might we ensure that victimized groups receive more support than a simple apology? In the Group Processes and Intergroup Relations preconference, Michael Wohl from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, suggests that one route may be empathetic collective angst.